The ARGUMENTS employed by your enemy often speak volumes.

For example, the Jєωs of Our Lord's time didn't even attempt to say that Jesus Christ didn't exist (like many people do today, "safely" 2000 years removed from the events) but instead they claimed that "Those miracles that Jesus did? Of course they happened, but he used the power of the devil to work them!"

Obviously this blasphemy is ridiculous, but note the underlying assumption: that the miracles were real. They couldn't deny the miracles, much less Our Lord's existence -- all they could resort to was attributing them to a demonic cause.

When you speak the truth, you don't change your "strategy" mid-stream. If the SSPX was the "true side", then why did they go from attacking their opponents (the Resistance) in their very character (spiritual life, good will, etc.) and now they are arguing the neo-SSPX position on its merits?

Why didn't they do that from the beginning? Is it because the frog boil water wasn't warm enough yet? It wasn't time yet?

Is it possible that even as the SSPX is regularized, the average brainwashed SSPX Catholic in the pews will still remember the Resistance in a negative manner, and even remember them as "wrong", "rumor-mongering", and "malicious"?

In my experience, the answer is YES, that is quite possible, even though it doesn't add up or make sense.

Did anyone stand up and point out how "The Resistance was right all along!"

These days the SSPX has been defending their new position, of course, but what happened to their old modus operandi -- to deny the whole thing and accuse the Resistance of malicious rumor-mongering?  What happened to "Deal?  We're not working on a deal!  It's foul rumors!  Rumors, I tell you!  Malicious, baseless, rumors from the demonic, twisted minds of troublemakers who have given up on salvation, a bunch of sedevacantists, and others who certainly aren't SSPX supporters!"  This was the official line 4 years ago, and pretty much up to the present day.

Ah, yes.   When you confront someone in power with an accurate citation of "Date", "To", "From", and "Subject" on a dangerous docuмent that the person or the person's organization was determined to keep hidden for reasons that are not morally defensible, it tends to force that person to choose between telling deliberate lies in the hope of keeping the information hidden from most of the people affected, or telling the truth and accepting whatever damage results from the disclosure.  Being on the receiving end of such a challenge must be especially painful--or at least stressful & discomforting--for clergy.

I suppose you've been too busy grooming your new server

• to have noticed this insinuation of guilt, combined with guilt by association , that was released only yesterday by SSPX:
  
  
  Quote from: District of the USA (April 27, 2016)

  SSPX news & events
  Keeping Secrets: A Moral Question?
  
  It is a basic principle of morality that it is intrinsically evil to lie.  The mind is made for truth and to lie is to direct the mind away from its proper end.  Obviously, the gravity of the evil of a particular lie depends on the gravity of the matter and other circuмstances.  Yet, the duty to speak the truth whenever one speaks does not mean the opposite is true: that it is always morally good to say everything one knows. Remaining silent is often morally required.
  
  One offends justice if one reveals or disseminates information received in confidence.  Information is received in confidence when one knows the person from whom it was received intended for it to be known only to the receiving party or parties.  To disseminate confidential or private conversations is violating the trust placed in one who leaks these private communications.  It is analogous to theft.   One is taking confidential information of a person and changing its character by disclosing it.  Even on the natural level we recognize that such unjust behavior is unethical.
  [....]
  As with so many cyber-crimes and sins, it is easy to forget that when we post or distribute information or conversations which we know the author did not intend for public circulation, we harm people.  The Internet is often two-dimensional and impersonal.  It is more than just flashing lights on a screen.  We do not see the victim of our injustice as when we reach into their pocket and take their wallet.  Yet, we commit an injustice against another person all the same whenever we treat their confidences carelessly or maliciously.
  

  
  <http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/keeping-secrets-moral-question-15443>.  Emphasis via bold-face & italics was added for this reply.
  -------
  Note *:  "What, you mean with a brush?" --HRC (heard at a 2016 campaign event, altho' maybe merely a rumor).

Gerard said:

There is a diabolism that seems to be attaching itself to traditionalist media sources.

  Good insight. It is difficult to categorize the levels of corruption.

   Tradition in Action has always been obstinate in the religious and political views.  On the latter, they've been flat-out ridiculous in blaming the "muslims" and Russia for all international troubles.

   The Remnant and CFN are obviously on the dole, hired guns to print what they are directed to write. Cover-up topics to protect the guilty. The latter may even be owned bu the xSPX now.

   For Catholic Militant TV, I think that uop grcan be characterized as a sodomite coven, acting as a front for the Jєω/rabbis.

It is too infested with queers. Their anchor Voris, is a lay nobody, yet he has a media network that acts as an authority in directing naive Catholics in their beliefs.  This operation is surely diabolocal.

Just keep in mind that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the "media" are the Jєω's forte. "Showa-biz" is an extension of his religion.  And they are masters of infiltration.

I disagree.  If these men are/have been legitimate popes, then +Fellay has the correct attitude.

Now, given Father Chazal's articulated view regarding the papacy, then Resistance makes sense.  Father Chazal is spot on, and his position most closely mirrors my own.

I know we've been around and round about this, but it still baffles me.

So unless we're officially sedevacantist (we "recognize" the Pope, though we resist his errors), then the Pope could just decide to alter the Ten Commandments and/or other elements of the Faith, and we'd have to obey him because he's "the Pope"?

I thought Vatican I was pretty explicit about the bounds of the Pope's infallibility: that "authority wasn't given to Peter that he might create a new doctrine" or something to that effect.

And for that matter, even the Pope's authority would seem to be circuмscribed. Anyone in authority can't just use the authority like a tyrant, without regards to the good of his subjects, the common good, or even GOD'S LAW. You can't wield authority (which comes from God) against God. That is ludicrous.

So unless we're officially sedevacantist (we "recognize" the Pope, though we resist his errors), then the Pope could just decide to alter the Ten Commandments and/or other elements of the Faith, and we'd have to obey him because he's "the Pope"?

Not exactly.  I am myself not "officially" sedevacantist.  I consider the question to be in doubt.  But if one happens to be a dogmatic R&Rist, then one indeed must remain in communion with and canonical submission to the Pope.  I'll add more after your next comment.  But neither +Williamson nor +Lefebvre were dogmatic R&Rists ... insofar as they have at times publicly stated that it's POSSIBLE that these men are not legitimate popes.  But the legitimacy of a pope is a dogmatic fact that must be known with the same certainty of faith as dogmas themselves (or otherwise defined dogmas could not have the certainty of faith as per peiorem partem sequitur conclusio).  So a Catholic can no more state, "It's possible that Francis is not the pope." than they can say, "It's possible that the dogma of the Assumption isn't true."  So, if you have these bishops stating that the opposite is POSSIBLE, then they are in fact not sedeplenists.  They are, whether they'll admit it or not, sede-doubtists ... like myself.  Except that I have properly articulated the position whereas they, in their anti-sedevacantists rhetoric, present themselves as sedeplenists, when in point of fact they're not.

I thought Vatican I was pretty explicit about the bounds of the Pope's infallibility: that "authority wasn't given to Peter that he might create a new doctrine" or something to that effect.

That application of infallibility is to miss the forest for the trees.  What R&R doesn't see are the overall implications for the broader indefectibility of the Church.  If the Church could go off the rails so badly in its Magisterium and Universal Discipline that Catholics are FORCED in conscience to sever communion with and canonical submission to the Holy See, then the Church would have failed in its divinely-constituted mission ... and would have defected.  In addition to infallibility in the strict sense, there's the general infallible safety of the Magisterium, that it can never get to a point where the Magisterium could hurt one's faith or morals.  When VI teaches, in the context of infallibility, that the Pope cannot create new doctrine, it's to distinguish doctrinal definition of truths already contained in the Deposit from Revelation itself.  This does not mean that, "If the Pope teaches something contrary to revealed doctrine, Catholics can reject it."  What's infallibility means is that the Pope is PREVENTED from teaching anything contrary to revealed doctrine in the first place.  This passage in VI is routinely misunderstood by R&R.

And for that matter, even the Pope's authority would seem to be circuмscribed. Anyone in authority can't just use the authority like a tyrant, without regards to the good of his subjects, the common good, or even GOD'S LAW. You can't wield authority (which comes from God) against God. That is ludicrous.

Indeed the pope's authority in the sense of his ability to give positive commands that harm the faith can be resisted, but you're confusing this with the infallibility of the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline.  Who decides whether something is against God's law?  You?  That's completely Protestant.  Your principles "sound good" from a pop logic type of perspective, but they're entirely contrary to Catholic theology.

I invite you to read Msgr. Fenton regarding the infallible safety of the Magisterium.

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Who decides whether something is against God's law?  You?  That's completely Protestant.  Your principles "sound good" from a pop logic type of perspective, but they're entirely contrary to Catholic theology.

I don't think so.

Yes, I think that Catholic laymen are competent to say when something isn't Catholic, or is at least generally BAD or DANGEROUS for the Faith.

This kind of Catholic agnosticism ("I can't know") usually comes from conservative Catholic quarters. "Who are you to judge the Pope? Are you more Catholic than the Pope now?"

I answer, "In some cases, yes!"

But not when it comes to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline.

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Apr 28, 2016, 4:05 pm)

Ah, yes.  When you confront someone in power<snip>

Since (=seit not weil) concerned supporters of SSPX as established by Abp.&#160;Lefebvre came into possession, or otherwise discovered, reliable information about an attempted sell-out to the Modernist Vatican by its center of power in Menzingen, it's been reported repeatedly in CathInfo that Bp.&#160;Fellay or his minions dismissed it as rumors.  Altho' I was not among the recipients of info from inside SSPX, the scenario as presented by Matthew, and his allies in the (eventual) Resistance, has the ring of truth.

That's because I've been involved in a comparable scenario on a (secular) conservation issue.  It was an eye-opening learning experience for me.  The situation & prospects to which I alerted my constituency, my activism having the benefit of inside info, plus regulatory & technical guidance, were dismissed by the proposing federal agency as mere rumors or unlikely (future) outcomes.  But allied activists and I were steadfast in opposing the federal proposal.  The alleged rumors turned out to actually be true, and the federal agency proceeded regardless.  It soon began to be clear--to anyone objective who was paying attention--that the allegedly unlikely outcomes that allied activists and I predicted turned out to be the actual outcomes.  Which is what we had plenty good enough reasons to believe all along.

I don't understand the post by AlligatorDicax.  Is this an accusation or an affirmation?&#160;
Is this on the side of Matthew or the side of Bishop Fellay &&#160;Company?&#160;  What is it he is trying to say?

If at this point in this reply, there are still readers that need a more explicit statement:
My initial reply was intended to affirm--in general--the accusations against Bp. Fellay & Menzingen[/b] as they have accuмulated--in general--in CathInfo, thus affirming those accusations made by Matthew and his allies in the Resistance as it's come into existence.